Jones v. State
256 P.3d 527
| Wyo. | 2011Background
- Jones was convicted of felony larceny under Wyo. Stat. § 6-3-402(a).
- Affidavit of probable cause referenced a potential violation of § 6-3-402(b) (larceny by bailee).
- Corey owned a 1968 Dodge Charger stored at Jones’s Gillette shop from 2006–2009.
- Corey’s car disappeared in June 2009; Jones claimed he believed the car had been abandoned or that Corey had taken it.
- Mark later bought the car from Jones for $2,000 and had it towed away; Jones purportedly did not own the car and did not have title.
- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial due to inadequate jury instructions on taking and carrying and to address potential bailee liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction based on affidavit facts | Jones argues affidavit failed to allege § 6-3-402(a) elements. | Jones contends district court lacked jurisdiction since bailee elements were alleged. | Jurisdiction proper on face of information; elements align with § 6-3-402(a). |
| Adequacy of jury instructions | Jones asserts taking and carrying elements were omitted. | State concedes taking/carrying are elements; omission prejudicial. | Omission constitutes plain error requiring reversal and new trial. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | There was evidence of taking/carrying by Mark, attributable to Jones. | No proof Jones personally took or carried; issue unresolved. | Evidence sufficient to support taking and carrying via attribution to Jones; however, reversal still required for instruction error. |
| Impeachment of prosecution witness with prior felonies | Defense sought to impeach witness; district court refused. | Courts permit impeachment of witnesses; exclusion prejudicial to defense. | Not addressed due to deciding issue on jury instructions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murdock v. State, 351 P.2d 674 (Wy. 1960) (taking and carrying may be attributed to third party in larceny)
- Mendicoa v. State, 771 P.2d 1240 (Wy. 1989) (larceny elements shared with common law; taking and carrying required)
- Vigil v. State, 859 P.2d 659 (Wy. 1993) (warning on necessity of exact element inclusion; basis for prejudice analysis)
- Granzer v. State, 193 P.3d 268 (Wy. 2010) (plain error analysis for missing essential element; prejudice standard)
- Reilly v. State, 55 P.3d 1259 (Wy. 2002) (instruction must inform jury of applicable law; standard for error)